PART FIVE: Closing The Curtain On The Late, Great Civil Rights "Toe Stepping Trial" Of 2010...

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

It is fitting the coverage of this trial should end with an image of Michael "Kip" Browne speaking. Because Browne was trying to speak at a press conference...because Browne NEEDED to speak and represent the neighborhood, but loudmouth bully Al Flowers was shouting down Michael Browne...because Council Member Don Samuels took a moral stand, and made a gesture of standing in front of Al Flowers...

And because within the span of two seconds Flowers SHOVED Don Samuels, then shoved Samuels AGAIN...then filed a lawsuit a few days later, ridiculously alleging Samuels had stepped on Flowers' toes (which reportedly lack toenails, ewwww) here we were: the great "toe stepping civil rights trial" of 2010.

It was time for final arguments by plaintiff attorney Jill Clark. Some of her first words were...


"We don't need to get too deeply into bias."

This statement was in regard to the witnesses who were presented as to whether Don Samuels did or did not step on Flowers' toes. Indeed, one might agree with Clark, here. Both sets of witnesses had their bias though perhaps one set of witnesses were biased for THE TRUTH and the other, well, you do the math.

So, indeed, let's set bias aside. Ultimately, it would appear it was a question of who was CREDIBLE.

NOT A SINGLE JUROR WAS TAKING NOTES as Clark outlined the "elements of assault." Not a single juror made a written notation as Clark said, "Getting in somebody's space is offensive conduct."

Describing Don Samuels standing with back turned to Al FLowers, arms crossed, Clark said of Samuels: He could have kicked backwards, elbowed, slugged, ANYTHING! And Clark vigorously demonstrated "could have elbowed" with her arms, elbows crooked, looking something like a funky chicken only without the actual funk.

At least twice in her closing statement, Clark made mention of something she called The Sixth Sense. While I have always understood this phrase to mean "extrasensory perception," some paranormal ability to, for example, talk to the dead as in the movie The Sixth Sense, click here for movie trailer, Clark appeared to steal a page from the all-too-innovative linguistic playbook of plaintiff witness Steve Jackson when she said "the sixth sense" somehow involved the feeling of personal space being violated.

Clark pointed out that witness Megan Goodmundson said "We were all shoulder to shoulder" in that room, but Samuels was on the other side of the room (when Flowers started doing what Flowers does so well) so, well, "couldn't he (Samuels) have been symbolic over there?"

In her closing statement, Clark put forward an idea that Don Samuels basically came up with a premeditated plan to stomp on Flowers foot and get away with it. Once again making mention of Megan Goodmundson, whose video was virtually the "Zapruder film" of this incident, Clark asked, in a conspiratorial tone, "Was the cue...when Samuels starts to walk over, turn on the video cameras?"

(At this point, dear reader, if I was telling you the story in person I would be imitating somebody's facial expression, the all-too-serious look of a paranoid as something ridiculous comes out of their mouth which makes you want to laugh, but you have to suppress your laugher as you realize, oh my god: it's not funny to the raving paranoiac. No, indeed, the raving paranoiac is making this statement seriously and expects YOU to take it seriously)

Clark next attacked the notion Don Samuels wasn't acting under "color of law" when he stood in front of Flowers. Clark used this example: A police officer who was chasing somebody but, at the moment of shooting his gun, said, "Oh, but now I am a private citizen." Despite the overwrought analogy, Clark would ultimately win on this point: the jury agreed Samuels was acting "under color of law."

But it didn't matter. Samuels hadn't stepped on Flowers' toes. So said the jury.

Clark next addressed the issue of damages, saying the defense had "not made any effort to dispute damages." At this point I looked over and saw a jurist had her arms crossed at this point. And, my word, I had thought THAT juror was one of the most sympathetic to Clark's arguments.

None of the jurors took notes as Clark talked about damages, except one juror: a young female who was scribbling furiously, as she had scribbled furiously throughout the trial. Indeed, often that juror's scribbling didn't seem to follow the ebb and flow of the trial at all. I finally formed the opinion the "novelist juror" was writing something creative which didn't relate to the claims of Al Flowers: a personal journal, a love letter, even poetry. During key points of trial drama, she didn't look up, but was scribbling furiously with her head down.

Clark talked about the previous civil rights case with Flowers, and the $1 of punitive damages in that trial. That jury, Clark said, was trying to "send a message."

(Editorial comment: Yes, but perhaps the message was intended for FLOWERS and the very existence of this toe stepping trial shows Flowers didn't get the message?)

Once again going after Megan Goodmundson in her closing statement, Clark imitated Goodmundson chanting "Shut up, Al" and noted Don Samuels didn't go stand in front of GOODMUNDSON. Clark claimed that "the real Don Samuels shows through for a moment" when Samuels related "what he said" to Farheen Hakeem.

Clark didn't repeat what it was Samuels said in that chastising tone: something along the lines of "you were a promising young woman, you ran for political office, but now you associate yourself with marginal people and with crazies."

Clark began to talk about damages and how there was a need for a relationship between the various kinds of damages. The amounts should make sense and not be random. For example, Clark talked about the relationship between $100,000 versus a million dollars...

In the back of the jury box, a young female juror with hair as dark as McDonald's coffee was looking directly at Clark and I thought I could read the expression on her face, almost use "The Sixth Sense" to read her thoughts: this is madness. This is the stuff you hear about on television, the ridiculously large jury verdicts for petty incidents. Only it's not something distant and disconnected, something on television: here I am right in the middle of it, and I have to render the verdict!

City Attorney James Moore stood to his feet and made an objection: improper argument. The judge sustained the objection.

Clark moved on breezily, asking for "damages" (amounts not specified) to deter Council Member Don Samuels from "future disregard" of the First Amendment.

Before the jury went back, the judge told them to consider whether a contradiction might result from "a lapse of memory or a falsehood."

(If I had a vote on that jury, I'd probably go with "falsehood" based on what I observed of the plaintiff witnesses)

And so the jury went to render its verdict, and I scored some lunch downtown, expecting the jury wouldn't be gone long. In fact, I'd made a public prediction of one hour. But I forgot the "lunch theory" of jury duty: if a jury breaks around lunch time, they're darn sure going to make sure they get lunch. And so the jury was actually out for something like four hours, lunch included. Word of a verdict came back at around 4:05 PM. A source tells me the jury had sent a question back to the judge. The question concerned assault and was something along the lines of: can an assault take place if there was no (deliberate?) physical contact by Don Samuels against Al Flowers? As soon as the judge answered "No," the jury announced it had a verdict.

I ran back to the courthouse after being dialed by the judge's assistant. Samuels' attorney James Moore, who works in an office nearby, returned but plaintiff attorney Clark did not, nor did Al Flowers. It was only myself and Jordan super citizen Megan Goodmundson (who is my girlfriend) present to hear the verdict in that lonely courthouse.

The judge assured the jury that a real court was not like television: parties are not always present for the verdict, but Moore happens to work nearby. So no disrespect should be taken from the gesture of individuals not being present. One or two of the jurors nodded understandingly including the venerable Mr. Martinson.

The foreperson of the jury read the verdict. She did not bother to stand. The foreperson turned out to be the "novel writing juror" who had taken so many notes during the trial, to the point I began to doubt whether her notes concerned the trial at all. Maybe I had her wrong, and maybe I had her right, but in any case she was the foreperson. The first part of the verdict concerned whether Don Samuels had acted under color of law. The answer was yes. Don had acted as a public official when he stood in front of Al Flowers.

The next part of the verdict concerned whether an assault took place. To that, the jury said "No."

And so said them all.

At some point I ran into the husband of the juror named Sandy Zappa, and I asked him what may have been the most important and pressing issue of the trial: Any relation to the musician Frank Zappa? (Click here for more info) I was informed "That is my dad's second cousin."

Thus ended the Great Toe Stepping Civil Rights Trial Of 2010.

Click here to experience, once again, the Benny Hill theme song ringtone of an unknown juror's phone, an inadvertent musical commentary on the dubious civil rights claim of Plaintiff Alfred Flowers.

PART TWO: A Disturbingly Detailed, Chillingly Complete, And Terrifyingly Textured Account Of The Great Toe Stepping Civil Rights Trial!

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

Where were we? Oh, yes, just leaving the men's room, and thank god.

Click here for Part One of Al Flowers vs. Don Samuels. You wouldn't want to read the second part first and then have to switch everything around in your head. Reality in this trial is confusing enough already.

A Truly INCREDIBLE Line Up Of Plaintiff Witnesses

And so the plaintiff presented witnesses, an all-star loony toons cast of cast-offs, malcontents and also-rans which the jury would ultimately find to be NOT CREDIBLE compared to the defense witnesses, who fell into two categories: successful candidates for political office and normal people like the jury members themselves.

First on the stand for the plaintiff was Dokor Dejvongsa, (hereinafter "DD") the law partner of attorney Ben Myers, arguably the "true leader" of the ousted Old Majority JACC faction with Chair E.B. Brown as a figurehead. DD was asked about her role in JACC and then asked what she recalled of the alleged "assault" on Al Flowers by Don Samuels. DD said Samuels "seemed to be feeling with his back and elbows to see where Flowers was."

Plaintiff Attorney Clark--who may have justifiably worried at that point that her client Al Flowers looked like a mad, raving lunatic shouting stuff at the press conference which made no sense--asked if Flowers' comments were "understood in light of the dispute?" DD agreed that what Flowers was saying was understood in light of the dispute.

What was at stake, here? Clark asked.

DD said "we all live in the neighborhood" and we were concerned about who would be in charge. A lot of money was at stake in the dispute, which centered on who would control what happened to the money and what happens to the neighborhood. DD understood the press conference to be "open to the public." There was no "monitoring" of who attended. DD was there with her "partner" Ben Myers.

DD claimed she saw Don Samuels' foot...

...come down hard on Al Flowers' foot.

On cross-examination, however, DD looked right at the soundless "Goodmundson video" and said she didn't see Flowers shove Samuels. DD said she didn't see a shove happen in real life, either.

Nope, DD didn't see any shoving by Flowers. Nope. An officer of the court, sitting there under oath and it's nope, nope, nope.

DD also tried to downplay Flowers' LOUDNESS at the press conference which, on a scale of 1 to 10, went to 11. At one point, DD said, oh-so-innocently, "I don't know how loud he was in comparison to others."

Flowers would, of course, ultimately ADMIT that he shoved Don Samuels and the tapes showed what the tapes showed, for videotapes show reality. Flowers would ADMIT, well, he talks LOUD.

City Attorney Moore had plenty of fun with DD's credibility during final argument. Actually, he had fun with the credibility of all the plaintiff witnesses since they were, one and all, incredible.

Governor Not-Elect Farheen Hakeem Compares Herself To A Tea Bag

Farheen Hakeem approached the stand and swore to God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. She described her job as mathematics lab assistant at Hennepin Technical College. Hakeem also spoke of her own experience at press conferences while running for public office, including a recent run for governor, saying it's pretty much normal to be interrupted during a press conference opening statement.

"Daggers will come at you, you just have to expect it," said Hakeem. You have to, she said, stay focused on the message you bring. At the JACC press conference, Hakeem said she was "seeking grant support" and saw the press conference as a chance to "mingle."

As she did the day of the press conference, Farheen coughed frequently while on the stand. Between bouts of coughing, she claimed that Don Samuels "stomped" on Al Flowers' foot.

"I didn't see the actual foot on the toe," she clarified. "I saw the foot go down."

And what did Flowers do in response?

He said, "Ow, this hurts" Hakeem answered.

Words. That. Clearly. Weren't. On. The. Tape.

Hakeem said at one point Don Samuels started to "intensely interrogate me" and she said, "Please back off, please calm down." Wearing her Muslim head covering on the stand, Hakeem explained how it's all very personal to her for anybody to touch her or even shake her hand. It would feel "like an assault" for her to be touched.

Hakeem complained how "the police officer wouldn't take names or testimony" about Don Samuels "shoving his shoulder blades" into Al Flowers. She herself was "not offended in any way by Mr. Flowers' speech that day and found it "distracting" when Don Samuels "walked across the room."

City Attorney Moore cross examined Farheen and got right to the heart of the matter by saying, "Let's listen to what Mr. Flowers ACTUALLY said." Moore played the tape. There was nothing on the tape like "Ow, this hurts" at the moment Don Samuels is supposedly on Flowers' foot.

Hakeem tried to say that "Ah" was really "Ow." Listening to the tape, I couldn't even hear the word "Ah." Hakeem's credibility was instantly shot. Moore got Hakeem to admit that it was "entirely speculation on your part" that Don Samuels stomped Flowers with his foot.

"Correct," Hakeem answered, almost cheerfully.

Hakeem talked about how she was afraid that, standing there, Council Member Samuels would falsely accuse her of some crime. At moments like this, you have to wonder who the plaintiff witness is testifying for. Is it all for the sake of a historic record to be later examined by a revolutionary tribunal? Some trier of fact beyond this trier of fact, who will use different standards on the capitalist insects which suck the blood of the proletariat?

Clearly, the jury from the suburbs wasn't buying any of this swill.

Moore asked Hakeem about a picture on her website where Flowers is pictured with Lt. Governor Candidate Dittman. Without much effort, Moore managed to show there was a relationship between Flowers and Hakeem, but Hakeem kept trying to distance herself from the relationship, saying the picture showed Flowers' support for DITTMAN.

The jury wasn't buying any of it. Loons of a feather flock together. They have loony lawn parties and recite the Team Rocket motto for galactic conquest, together.

At one point, Hakeem talked about how, in politics, "You're a tea bag. You get submerged in boiling water, and everything that's inside of you comes out."

And so I concluded the question I asked in a previous editorial, click here, had been answered:

Do Hakeem and Dittman have whimsical little herbal tea parties with stuffed animals, imagining aloud what their hypothetical (gubernatorial) administration will do?

They do. Of course they do. And somebody pours tea for teddy, too.

Zack Metoyer Comes To Court After Getting Dressed All By Himself

Zack Metoyer, who has long played Robin to Al Flowers' Batman, came to court all spiffed up in a tan suit. I hardly recognized him from behind, thinking, wow, Zack really got cleaned up.

Then Zack turned around, revealing an odd "highway safety cone orange" dress shirt and no tie. Zack was grinning. It was hard to see why he was grinning at that moment, unless he was very pleased with his outfit and the first impression he was making.

Under questioning by plaintiff attorney Clark, Zack Metoyer said he met Al Flowers "working with the NAACP." On the day of the JACC press conference, Zack was one of the first people there, actually helping to put out the doughnuts while asking for a copy of the bylaws. (Others present at the press conference have no recollection of doughnuts)

In regard to the toe stepping allegation, Metoyer said Flowers was "looking down" and what Flowers said made Metoyer think Flowers had been stepped on. Flowers wasn't saying or doing anything inappropriate by shouting, over and over, "I got four people says you was illegal." It was evident to Metoyer that Don Samuels was on the side of the newly-elected board.

In response to the city attorney, Metoyer agreed his "television show" was a cable access show where, really, anybody can come forward and have a show with no special qualifications. Flowers had been a guest on Metoyer's show, and vice versa.

Steve Jackson Talks About JACC "Chess Game"

Steve Jackson, the former self-styled "Sergeant At Arms" of the "Old Majority" JACC board, went to the stand in a black dress shirt which bore some kind of wild embroidered emblem on the back, possibly martial-arts related. Jackson said he works "at an alternative high school and the Boys and Girls Club." His job at JACC meetings was to be the Sergeant At Arms because sometimes there were "hostile" meetings and he needed to "make sure everybody was safe."

In regard to the "takeover" of the leadership of the neighborhood board, Jackson said it was "like chess." Somebody "got in the back door" and then excluded folks. "The first night (meeting?) they took over the board and fired the chair." There was an argument and it went to court. It was a long, drawn-out thing.

At one point, Jackson claimed he had "withdrawn" from the court battles and, indeed, claimed he didn't even know which way the court battle contest with JACC had gone, because he was not following it. There appears to be serious disagreement outside of the court room with this statement by Jackson about not being part of the JACC court battles. There is talk of a possible plaintiff appeal in the JACC court battle over the legitimacy of the board elected in January of 2009. This purported appeal has not been confirmed by JNS blog, however, it was stated in this court by Judge Schlitz that plaintiffs still had the right to file an appeal in that matter.

Jackson proceeded to explain his understanding of the term "pro-city" versus "pro-community" to describe the factions on the JACC board. To Jackson, "pro-city" means an effort to get folks from the suburbs to move to the neighborhood, but there is "not the same push" to give resources to people who had been "living in the community forever." Don Samuels, said Jackson, supported the pro-city side and "there weren't minority people on the pro-city side."

At the JACC press conference, announced by the NEW board, Jackson said he'd been asked by E.B. Brown, chair of the OLD board, to be present and act as Sergeant At Arms.

At the press conference, Jackson said he didn't see anything that was "out of pocket."

It should be noted this is something Jackson does all the time: he uses common phrases from American English in a way nobody else uses the phrases. It's not like a whole community uses "out of pocket" the way Jackson uses it. On the contrary, Jackson appears to speak his own unique language, and we are all expected to read in the common, understood meaning. So there you have it. Jackson didn't see anything "out of pocket" at the meeting and, furthermore, only if it got to be "overbearing" would it be a problem, said Jackson.

In the incident where Don Samuels had the audacity to stand in front of Al Flowers, Jackson saw Don as "being the aggressor" and wanted him (Samuels) to go back where he had been before." With Don standing there, "Al couldn't be seen or heard, I felt."

(Please note, the previous sentence is NOT in parody font)

Jackson felt there was "no reason to remove Al" because, after all, there is "shouting all the time at JACC meetings." More than once Jackson tried to emphasize this point: that's how meetings are in Jordan. Chaos, disorder, rudeness, shouting, interruption, this is how "normal" is defined. The problem is the videotape shows something different: articulate, democratic voices of order and reason are seen to struggle with the thuggish forces of social anarchy represented by Al Flowers shouting at the top of his lungs like an infant.

Jackson defines Al Flowers' behavior as the norm. Others define Al Flowers behavior as an interruption of the norm. A well-lit court of law is not the place where Flowers' argument can win. Flowers' argument is more suited to a knife fight in a dark alley. The rule is there are no rules. The only question is whether somebody will get hurt amid all the shouting and posturing.

City Attorney Moore asked Jackson about the idea of pro-city versus pro-community. Would Jackson say the pro-city forces were in favor of gentrification?

Yes, Jackson agreed.

And you were opposed to that? Moore asked.

Yes, Jackson was opposed to gentrification.

So there was a policy dispute within the board about how things should go?

Jackson agreed. At some point Jackson said (or had previously said) the pro-city faction didn't include minorities. Moore proceeded to show Jackson the list of who was elected and it certainly did include minorities.

"In fact," Moore pressed. "This was the most diverse board elected in years."

The pro-city group didn't include MY COMMUNITY MEMBERS, Jackson insisted. It's not just race. It's also time in the community.

"Let me rephrase myself," Jackson said, doing that delightful thing he does with the English language. "It's not about race. It's about class. A class of people."

So, Moore asked, would you say you can phrase it this way: How do we move forward? Gentrification or support for the people who have lived here for years? Yes, Jackson agreed, that is one way to phrase it.

For quite a while after watching this exchange, I tried to figure out what Moore was doing. At some point, after much contemplation, the answer seemed apparent: Moore was showing this struggle within the board was NOT ABOUT RACE. It was not a bunch of white people taking over a neighborhood board in a neighborhood which has been traditionally black for several decades. Rather, it was about a vital policy discussion among diverse people: how do we move our neighborhood forward? Do we move toward creating affluence and social order (New Majority) or do we keep subsidizing poverty and making excuses for criminal behavior? (Old Majority)

Ask the jury of suburbanites which path they think is better for North Minneapolis. The only problem with this whole exchange, when examined for the historical record, is the word "gentrification." The word fails to include nuances of economic inclusiveness found in the word "revitalization." We who struggle to turn around North Minneapolis do not accept the term "gentrifiers."

We are "revitalizers."

But this trial wasn't THAT discussion.

Did Al Flowers shove Don Samuels, Moore asked. Let's help with the videotape. After all, you are right there in the tape, right? This is you, here? And here? Moore played the "Goodmundson tape" and asked if Jackson had seen "a shove." Jackson said, "It could have been but I can't say positively." Jackson admitted Al Flowers "raised his voice, got hostile." Jackson told Al to "calm down." But, Jackson emphasized, keep in mind that yelling and not taking turns was "the status quo."

Jackson admitted Flowers was not a member of JACC.

Confronted with video of the "second push," Jackson admitted the second push was "more forceful" and agreed if you had a bad neck or back "it could do you harm." But this was just the way people in the community "spectator chairs" conducted themselves.

"Who disrupted the press conference?" Moore asked.

"To me, Don," Jackson answered.

And so ended testimony for that first day. The jury went home with Jackson's final words on their mind.

Who disrupted the press conference? Was it the guy yelling at the top of his lungs?

No, these witnesses all think it's Don Samuels. The man who stood in front of the guy who was yelling, arms crossed, he's the big meanie, here. He's the toe stepper. He's the violator of rights, the disruptor of meetings.


What on earth did these jurors talk about that night with their spouses? What did they say about North Minneapolis?

(To Be Continued In Part Three)

A Disturbingly Detailed Account Of Al Flowers vs. Don Samuels, The Great Civil Rights "Toe Stepping Trial" (Some Adult Language And Parody, Be Warned)

Photo and blog post by John Hoff

Today the Star Tribune offered a belated and not terribly detailed account of the trial of Al Flowers vs. Don Samuels, click here for that article. Though offering relatively few details not available on Johnny Northside Dot Com in the past week, the article is valuable in one respect: it shows the mainstream media understands there is a lawsuit machine at work and the mainstream media has called it out. In fact, the first two words of the article tell the tale:

FREQUENT PLAINTIFF Al Flowers...

I witnessed the trial and took detailed notes, so detailed the plaintiff attorney reportedly complained to defense counsel that I had somehow obtained the jury list and published it, click here for that blog post about jury composition. In fact, I obtained the names of the jury in open, public court and guessed at the spellings. (The fact the spellings were "approximate" was clearly stated in that blog post)

(The following three paragraphs are parody)

OK, I confess. Al Flowers handed me a copy of the jury list in the men's room, and said something about how he didn't have his glasses, and asked me to read aloud to him the names and (especially) home addresses of the jury. I told Al Flowers I'd be glad to read him the document, but on the condition I could take notes. He was all, like, cool, whatever, and then added, "I can read, you know, I'm not irrelevant." (sic)

Obviously, we didn't want anybody to see what was happening in the men's room so we went into one of the stalls. Sitting on the commode fully clothed, I read aloud a tawdry tale of suburbanites who had left their comfortable homes to sit in judgment on this messy case from the rough-and-tumble neighborhood politics of North Minneapolis, as contaminated by Al Flowers, who lives in South Minneapolis.

I'd only gotten some of the jurist names written down when Al snatched back the document and I was all, like, "What the hell, Al? A deal is a deal." But when you're trapped in a bathroom stall with a guy who is 6'4'' and 220 pounds, notoriously ill-tempered and lacking the social grace of a kindergarten student, you don't really want to push your luck. So I said nothing as Al Flowers stomped away, actually GROWLING like a pit bull. I could only make out the phrase "Maple Grove and sh**."

(End of parody)

Life Is A Stage And We Must All Play Our Roles

Judge Patrick J. Schitlz (like the beer) is very judicial, and has the handsome features and immaculate steel-gray haircut of a United States Senator, but you can perceive an affable and gregarious personality beneath his proper demeanor. It must have required a great deal of self-control to keep from laughing during the trial. One witness later told me about being very close to the judge on the witness stand, looking toward His Honor and perceiving a kind of...

...silent communication in the judge's bemused eyes: We both know this is crazy, but we have to play our roles, don't we?

At the beginning of the trial, the judge read a statement to the jury which summarized the issues in the case and how those issues had spawned the present litigation:

This is a civil case brought by Al Flowers, a community activist, versus City Councilman Don Samuels. Some years ago residents formed the Jordan Area Community Council, known as JACC, a neighborhood organization. JACC has a board of directors. In 2007 and 2008, a number of disputes divided the membership. In 2009 a new board was elected, and that new board elected new officers.

Some saw the election as illegitimate. The new officers called a press conference. Don Samuels attended. Samuels was in favor of the new board. Al Flowers attended, too. Al Flowers was opposed to the new board.

Michael Browne, the chair of the new board, read from a prepared statement. Flowers interrupted. Samuels stood in front of Flowers. Flowers says Samuels elbowed and stepped on his feet in a deliberate way. Flowers says he was assaulted by Samuels.

You, the jury, will have to decide was Samuels acting as a private citizen or a member of the city council? Consider the evidence in light of your own observation and life experience. You are the sole judges of the facts. You must decide who you believe. The witnesses, their intelligence, their motives, manner, reasonableness and consistency.

DO NOT post anything on the internet about this case. Do not post anything on Twitter, Facebook, or MySpace about this case. Don't read news stories about the case. Do not research or make any investigation. Don't go to the internet for information about some person. At the end of the trial, I will meet with you privately and answer questions so you can find out anything you are curious about. The judge didn't say this: the best coverage of all is to be found on Johnny Northside Dot Com. (But it's true)

Opening Statement By Clark Begins With Loud Chaos

Jill Clark walked up to the microphone and there was a shriek from the sound equipment, causing Clark to leap back a few feet in surprise. And so began the case of the plaintiff, with chaos and disorder.

Clark talked about how an opening statement is "a tree to hang things on." She wanted to give the jury "some things to look, listen, watch for." One way to assess creditability is to ask yourself, "What can the person see and hear?" You will see still pictures and one or more video tapes. One tape has audio, one does not. Keep in mind video has a vantage point that can only see certain things.

There are two claims at issue, here. One is a First Amendment retaliation. We ask that you listen for evidence. What was Flowers saying? Why was he saying it? Why did he care so much?

You will hear evidence about how Flowers felt. If he was afraid. You will hear evidence of physicality.

Ask yourself: what was the involvement of Minneapolis? Where did the money come from, and where was it going? You will hear evidence of factions within JACC, two strong and opposing factions. One faction was "pro-city" and one was "pro-community." That dispute got to the point there was a takeover of the board. That set the stage for what you will hear about. You can look at the transcript (of the tape with audio) but we will focus on specific parts.

Flowers stated, "I got four people who says you're illegal." That was "the elephant in the room."

There were witnesses who could see what happened. The plaintiffs believe Don Samuels was there "as a Minneapolis City Council Member." We are going to ask you to find that Flowers was assaulted.

Please consider: if somebody comes very close to you, could that be assault? It is undisputed that Don Samuels came from across the room, and had his back to Flowers. But what was going on with the feet?

After the police came and took Flowers outside, he left, they left, there were no charges. The evidence shows Samuels contacted (made contact with) Flowers but he (Samuels) was not removed that day. Police said Samuels is a council member. He is our boss. Keep in mind a prior jury awarded damages for First Amendment retaliation.

(A clarification is made somewhere near this point. The jury is told the "prior jury" involved a separate case, a different set of facts. It was not a "prior jury" trying this same case. My memory seems to say the judge made the clarification to the jury but my notes do not capture that info)

This Is A Case About A Bully Who Interrupted A Community Meeting

James A. Moore, city attorney, (not to be confused with Jerry Moore, the JACC executive director ousted in 2009) is no stranger to Al Flowers. In fact, it was Moore who went up against Flowers in the "cable access dispute," where Flowers' television show was suspended after somebody on the show said something to the effect "We've got to kill the house negro." (Others hear the word ni**er) The utterance was referring to Don Samuels.

So this "toe stepping trial" was a rematch for James A. Moore as well as Don Samuels.

Moore's opening statement said the case was about "a bully who interrupted a community meeting." The bully is the plaintiff, Al Flowers. Samuels is a community leader who recognized the inappropriate behavior, literally took a stand by standing with his back turned to the bully in a silent gesture of disapproval, and got shoved twice. Then he got sued.

How did we get here? It's a convoluted story. But first, let's talk about opening statements. I think of opening statements as being like the cover of a jigsaw puzzle box which tells you how the picture looks, not "a tree to hang stuff on." You might find a piece that is orange and say, well, that piece must go over there.

JACC is a neighborhood organization. JACC works with the city and does receive money. But in 2008, JACC was a fractured organization. There was a contest over nominations to the board. On January 12, 2009, a new board had its first meeting and ultimately elected its own officers. There was a lot of controversy in the community over these issues.

Don Samuels lives in the neighborhood and was active in JACC before being elected. You will hear how letters were written acknowledging the new board. There was a press conference a few days after the election. There are two videos. These videos are key evidence: a picture speaks 1,000 words. What happens is the plaintiff begins yelling loudly, over and over: "I got four people says you're illegal." Samuels stands in front of Flowers. Flowers shoves Samuels twice in the back and then continues to yell. Others try to calm down Flowers.

What happened here? The Council Member made a symbolic, non-violent gesture of disapproval. For that, he got shoved and then he got sued.

A High Tech Jury Box

It wouldn't be surprising if the jury weighed videotaped evidence very heavily, for reasons beyond its objective recording of whatever reality is placed before it: the jury box is rigged up with computer monitor screens. Each juror has their own private screen.

As in the opening lines of "A Tale Of Two Cities," this was a trial of Light, and a trial of Darkness.

The courtroom lights, according to Judge Schlitz, had only two settings: Airport bright or grave dark. An attempt was made to dim the lights for the first playing of the JACC press conference video--the one with audio, not the silent "Zapruder film" showing Don Samuels head snapping back after being hit from behind, twice. Dimming the lights plunged the courtroom into darkness, so there would be no dimming of lights. His Honor bemoaned the sorry state of the lights in this court room: a different federal court where he has presided has such finely tuned controls you can almost put on a Hollywood production. Oh well. We'd all have to make do.

At this point in the proceedings, Jerry Moore (the ousted former JACC executive director) showed up in the courtroom. He was wearing his eternal blue blazer. As Jerry took a seat, he grinned and actually WINKED at me. Please note this is NOT being written in the parody font. I wish.

The first showing of the JACC press conference videotape would say much about the reactions of the jury, their first impressions of notorious loon-at-large Al Flowers. I watched the jury closely as the tape concluded and they looked up. Several wore carefully-muted expressions of shock and disbelief...except for Mr. Martinson, the oldest juror with a background in print sales. His expression (though muted) was one of anger and disgust.

He was looking straight at Al Flowers.

There are moments you know which way a particular jurist will go long before the jury leaves court to seek a verdict. You can tell by the way they stop taking notes or even try to keep themselves from LAUGHING. You can tell when a jurist has their mind made up. Martinson's mind was already made up. That was one jury member down, and 8 to go for the defense.

Don Samuels Takes The Stand, Jury Soon Eats From His Hand

Don Samuels took the stand and was questioned by plaintiff attorney Jill Clark. Under clever questioning, Samuels confessed to being duly elected three times. Yes, (Jordan resident and super citizen) Megan Goodmundson had "worked on the campaign." (Clark was trying to get Samuels to say Goodmundson was his "campaign manager," but Samuels did not say that)

There was discussion about the various roles of Don Samuels, both as a city council member and a member of the Jordan Neighborhood. So much of the testimony throughout the trial involved trying to prove the "color of law" assertion. Keep in mind ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN VIOLATE YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. The First Amendment protects us from the government, not against each other, when it comes to the First Amendment. So if Don Samuels was going to violate Al Flowers precious First Amendment right to, for example, host a show saying "kill the house negro," Samuels would need to be acting in the role of a public official or, at a minimum, be unable to leave that role and act as a private citizen because the public official role was inherent.

There was an extensive and tedious discussion about NRP, CPED and their interactions with JACC. At one point, Don Samuels identified his own wife, Sondra Samuels, on the video tape as Sondra yelled, "Officers, be careful, he'll sue" as the police hauled off Al Flowers. Don Samuels called his wife "the pretty lady," producing soft laughter in the court room and smiles from the jury.

Very quickly, it was apparent Samuels was winning the jury. They liked Samuels, and sensed his aura as the man chosen from all the people of the neighborhood to be its leader, its spokesperson. Before the trial was over, some of the jury members were seen to be sitting up and paying rapt attention to Samuels on the stand, their faces wearing an expression of open admiration, expressions that seemed to say: I can understand why this neighborhood, with all its difficult and troubling issues, chooses this man to fight for its interests. There may be hope for North Minneapolis, after all, if they can produce organic grassroots leaders like this to get them out of their troubles.

For much of the trial, I was seated behind Al Flowers. At one point early in the trial, I saw an image of myself on the video screen behind Al Flowers as I actually, in present reality, sat behind Al Flowers two years later. At that moment, I could feel the thin veil of reality degrading and being replaced with "surreality matter," bit by bit. Will the press conference ever end, or will we all be caught in its vortex forever?

Jill Clark began listing people. People Don Samuels (admittedly) DID NOT go and stand in front of during the press conference. And what could Don Samuels do? He was guilty as all-get-out, forced to admit he hadn't gone and stood in front of these other people.

A still photo was presented as evidence showing Council President Barb Johnson at the press conference. Well, there you had it. Council President Barb Johnson was present at the press conference. As the Charles Manson cultists put it so well: The president has said we are guilty, so why does the trial go on?

Jill Clark asked Don Samuels some rather open-ended questions, and Don Samuels took the opportunity to explain his actions at the press conference:

It was happening again. Al Flowers was trying to shout people down and those present were too intimidated to speak. By standing in front of Flowers with his back turned, Samuels was trying to say "The people in this circle are having a meeting and the grownups will make sure this meeting takes place."

Clark asked: Wouldn't Don Samuels agree that NO MATTER WHAT AL FLOWERS SAID that he (Samuels) does not have a right to assault him (Flowers)?

Without hesitation, Don Samuels agreed.

A Close And Personal Encounter With Jerry Moore In The Men's Room

While the testimony had continued, Jerry Moore changed seats in the court and landed himself at the end of the "pew" where I sat near the jury box. Nobody else was in that "pew" but Jerry on one end, me on the other, and since my end of the pew is set against the wall, the only way out was past Jerry.

I had rather hoped Jerry would move before I had to leave, so I wouldn't be forced to speak to him. Jerry Moore is suing me for accusing him of involvement in the fraudulent transaction at 1564 Hillside Ave. N., a transaction in which Jerry Moore was involved as surely as God made little green apples. You can ask slumlord Keith Rietman, who is very open about Jerry's involvement in the deal. Recently, one of the defendants in a mortgage fraud lawsuit filed against Keith Reitman, Jerry Moore and others submitted a brief to try to keep Moore in the case as a defendant but, really, all this stuff is from another matter which will be explored in good time.

In any case, because Moore has a lawsuit against me, I'm not supposed to speak to him, riiiiight? But I couldn't get out of the pew because Jerry Moore was at the end of the pew, now standing up and talking to two other people, but still blocking the pew egress.

So I leaned over and said to the bailiff, "Sir, I would like to get out." The bailiff immediately asked Jerry, et al, to move aside and let me pass. At this point Jerry began to verbally protest something to the effect why couldn't I ask him, Jerry personally? Why did I have to say something to the bailiff? The bailiff answered something like, "Well, he feels he needs to ask me. Could you move, please?" And they moved. And I passed by, went to the men's room, and was standing at the urinal for obvious purposes when Jerry Moore came in, took the urinal beside me, and began exhaling angrily and undoing his belt.

"Why can't you be a man, huh? Just for once in your life, BE A MAN."

No answer.

"You should go back to where you came from," Jerry says. "Leave. Nobody wants you here."

No answer. One thinks things, but there is no answer. Jerry's voice grows more agitated.

"Nobody wants you. You understand? I don't want you. I DON'T WANT YOU!!!!"

There I stand, with my junk in my hand/
There Jerry stands, also a junk-holdin' man/
But he makes it plain for me to see/
Jerry doesn't want...doesn't want...ME

I zipped up, silently. I washed my hands in silence and in silence I walked away, out of the men's room. In the hallway, the truly scary-looking Mpls Mirror lady chanted "Dead beat dad, dead beat dad." This is what I get for recently paying my ex-wife the $3,000 I owed her from a hard, difficult 10 weeks of extended work in South Carolina. Sigh.

Oh, well. Justice may not exist in the men's room, it may not exist in the hallway right outside the court room, but I had confidence justice would prevail inside the court room. I went back and took a seat. My hands were nice and clean as I entered the court room. The bailiff gave me an understanding nod and smile as if to say, "We know the galley is filled with crazies today but don't worry, this is a federal court, there's plenty of security."

(TO BE CONTINUED IN PART TWO)